Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:01 PM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,919,102 times
Reputation: 6059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
For the last time, what you are quoting is the 200% of the federal poverty level, that's the cut off to qualify for the benefits for the child (or pregnant women). That's NOT the qualifier for the adult coverage.
He used Texas as an example of the great public safety net poor people get in America compared to European countries and just dropped the ball completely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:03 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,296,021 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
OK, missed that. But someone is doing the billing! Most every article I read talked about billing. Billing out of province, out of country, etc, etc. SOMEONE is doing it.

Doctors bill the province for their work: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lly-work/?_r=0
Here's a system for them:https://www.clinicaid.ca/faq
So they must hire someone to do this, or they do it themselves.

Hospitals hire people to do billing: Workopolis - Finance Clerk

So if you have to have insurance to cover the stuff the provincial health service doesn't cover, it doesn't cover everything. I don't think that's bad, I'm just sayin'.


Yes lots of us have those extra plans but they are not too expensive because they do not cover that many of the most expensive things like hospitalization or cancer treatments. Those are in the basic health care. As far as each province being slightly different that may be a positive rather than a negative. Different treatments or treatment delivery systems can be tried out and one can move to another province if that province offers an especially rare service that would not be available otherwise.


I lived most of my life here without that extra coverage and truth be told I have paid much more in vet bills than in all of your people health care expenses. But my pets were worth it to me, maybe not as worth it as my wife but certainly worth more than I am myself.


I think the most telling things about the Canadian Health Care system is that most Canadians reject any move to make it more like the Canadian system and the father of it was voted by Canadians to be the Greatest Canadian of all time, beating out the father of Confederation, he inventor of insulin, the best hockey players and Terry Fox.


From my understanding of the billing system is it is much easier for the doctor in Canada than that in the STates. It is mostly a single form sent to a single place. I am not sure how it works for billing out of province. The doctors do have billing to others as well, Workers compensation Board for example. One of the things I do not think is covered is for the doctor to write up a sickness note for your employer.


Hospitals also hire people to pay the bills and the payroll. I would be surprised if there are any that do not have clerical people billing and paying bills. How would anyone keep track of expenses otherwise. The hospitals and the doctors offices are private businesses as far as the health care system goes, the doctors are self employed. Doesn't everyone who is self employed need to figure out who owes him money?


I am not of the age that if I lived in America I would be eligible for government health care so perhaps it might be moot for me but I do care about my fellow Canadians. I for one have no interest in our system becoming like the American one but do know that here are places that can be improved. Until we are number one in the world we need to make it better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:05 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 496,468 times
Reputation: 858
You raise a lot of relevant questions, but just by comparing to other countries with single-payer, seems like taxes would actually go down since the single-payer countries have much less expensive healthcare while delivering better care. The USA has the worst of the both worlds right now, both extremely expensive healthcare with lousy results, and even the tax-funded portion of US health care alone is far more costly than, for example, the systems in France, Japan, and Germany, or England's NHS, or what they have in Korea, Belgium, Chile, Italy, Taiwan, Thailand, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Spain, even Sweden or Norway. And it's not a trivial difference, US healthcare is usually many times more expensive than these other countries. Health insurance companies and their execs skim off hundreds of billions of dollars and add to the costs for being totally useless parasites basically, adding nothing in value and complicating things enormously. This adds both to the direct cost in US taxes, and also indirectly in the form of higher premiums that discourage spending in other parts of the economy, weakening true economic growth and productivity.

With single-payer, you reduce the overhead and costs enormously, which is the only real way to bend down the cost curve. Americans would then actually pay less in taxes and other costs with single-payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:10 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,729 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13596
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
No, you said anyone earning less than $40 000 qualify for Medicaid in Texas, including single childless people and single mothers.
I did not. Think about how ridiculous you sound. How can a single childless person be a household of 3 for tax filing purposes (tax return for proof of income is an eligibility requirement)?

Do you really need to be clogging up threads with this nonsense? You're only making yourself look foolish. /SMH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:17 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,729 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13596
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
For the last time, what you are quoting is the 200% of the federal poverty level, that's the cut off to qualify for the benefits for the child (or pregnant women). That's NOT the qualifier for the adult coverage.
Well, "the official benefits website of the U.S. government" specifically states otherwise.

Let's recap:
Quote:
"In order to qualify for this benefit program, you must be a resident of the state of Texas, a U.S. national, citizen, permanent resident, or legal alien, in need of health care/insurance assistance, whose financial situation would be characterized as low income or very low income. You must also be either pregnant, a parent or relative caretaker of a dependent child(ren) under age 19, blind, have a disability or a family member in your household with a disability, or be 65 years of age or older.
In order to qualify, you must have an annual household income (before taxes) that is below the following amounts:

Household Size -- Maximum Income Level (Per Year)

1 -- $23,522
2 -- $31,720
3 -- $39,917
4 -- $48,114
5 -- $56,311
6 -- $64,508
7 -- $72,725
8 -- $80,962"
https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1640
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:23 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,729 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13596
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
He used Texas as an example of the great public safety net poor people get in America compared to European countries and just dropped the ball completely.
I posted the exact info on "the official benefits website of the U.S. government."

It does indeed state that "a parent or relative caretaker of a dependent child(ren) under age 19" with a household income under $40,000/year for a household of 3 is in fact eligible for Medicaid.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Fed Gov.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,895 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16606
Anything that is placed BETWEEN the patient and the physician increases cost.
Whether it is government, insurance, tax collectors, administrative overhead, bureaucrats, etc, it will increase the cost.
TANSTAAFL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:32 PM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,101,365 times
Reputation: 13660
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
To save time, I'm cutting and pasting from another thread.

Studies have shown that a basic 10 percent national sales tax is more than enough to pay for national healthcare. Everyone who buys anything from a 10 year old buying a toy, to a wealthy person buying a yacht is contributing. The money virtually pours in every day. Even the poor contribute when they buy a t-shirt or an inexpensive pair of shoes. Those who are in this country illegally are also forced to contribute using this method. The wealthy buy more goods and higher priced goods so they ultimately pay more.
Then take into account the middle class would no longer be paying insurance premiums with high deductibles. Money is not taken out of anyones paycheck or property taxes. They actually end up paying less with a sales tax. It's a win, win.
I like this idea, provided that rent and utilities is excluded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:36 PM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,919,102 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I did not. Think about how ridiculous you sound. How can a single childless person be a household of 3 for tax filing purposes (tax return for proof of income is an eligibility requirement)?

Do you really need to be clogging up threads with this nonsense? You're only making yourself look foolish. /SMH
Yes, you did. A single, childless adult was used by you in the thread about the Medicare-for-all 676 bill in Congress as an example of how much support poor single earners get in America compared to Sweden, paying little in taxes while getting Medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps and all sorts of great benefits etc. Its absurd of course, but thats what you claimed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,999 posts, read 4,128,034 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
I like this idea, provided that rent and utilities is excluded.
Curious.... is food included in this 10% tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top